CIVIL LAW > XI. QUASI-DELICTS > B. The Tortfeasor > 2. Persons Made Responsible for Others > a. In General > ii. Indirect Liability for Intentional Acts

Under Philippine law, quasi-delicts (or torts) are governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides for the general framework of liability arising from acts or omissions that cause damage to another. Indirect liability for intentional acts falls within the broader scope of quasi-delicts and vicarious liability. Below is an exhaustive analysis:

1. Legal Basis

The doctrine of vicarious liability is embodied in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which extends liability to certain persons for acts committed by individuals under their control or supervision. While it typically applies to negligent acts, it also covers intentional acts, provided the requisites are met. The relevant provisions include:

Parents for minor children
Guardians for their wards
Employers for their employees
Owners for their managers or representatives
Teachers or heads of establishments for their pupils

The law seeks to allocate responsibility not only to the immediate wrongdoer but also to those who are presumed to have the capacity or duty to prevent the wrongful act.

2. Requisites for Indirect Liability for Intentional Acts

To establish indirect liability for intentional acts under quasi-delict principles, the following elements must be proven:

Intentional Act: A deliberate act that causes damage, even if not necessarily criminal in nature.
Existence of a Relationship: There must be a juridical relationship between the tortfeasor and the person sought to be held liable (e.g., employer-employee, parent-child).
Control or Supervision: The person sought to be held liable must have control, authority, or supervision over the direct tortfeasor.
Causal Connection: The act of the tortfeasor must have been committed in the exercise of their duties or within the scope of their relationship with the responsible party.
Presumption of Negligence: Article 2180 presumes that the person liable failed to exercise proper diligence to prevent the damage.

3. Specific Instances of Indirect Liability

A. Parents for Minor Children

Parents are liable for intentional torts committed by their unemancipated minor children living with them.
Liability arises from the presumption that parents failed to supervise or properly discipline their children to prevent harm.
Case Law: The courts have held parents liable for intentional harm caused by their children, such as assault or destruction of property.

B. Employers for Employees

Employers are liable for intentional acts committed by employees in the course of their employment.
To escape liability, the employer must prove that they exercised due diligence in hiring, training, and supervising the employee.
Examples:
- An employee assaults a customer during work hours.
- An intentional fraud committed by an employee in the execution of their tasks.

C. Guardians for Wards

Guardians may be held liable for intentional acts committed by their wards if they fail to supervise adequately or exercise appropriate care over their wards.
Liability is analogous to that of parents over minors.

D. Teachers or Heads of Schools for Pupils

Teachers or heads of establishments are responsible for damage caused by their students during school hours or under their supervision.
This includes intentional harm, such as bullying or physical aggression, occurring during school-sanctioned activities.
The liability may be shifted to parents if the act occurred outside the scope of school activities.

E. Owners for Managers and Representatives

Owners of businesses are responsible for intentional acts committed by managers or representatives when these acts are performed within the scope of their authority or representation.
Example: A manager deliberately breaches a contract to gain a competitive advantage.

4. Defenses Against Indirect Liability

The party sought to be held liable may invoke the following defenses:

Exercise of Due Diligence: Proving that all necessary precautions and measures were taken to prevent the wrongful act.
No Nexus Between Act and Relationship: Demonstrating that the intentional act was committed outside the scope of the tortfeasor's duties or relationship.
- Example: An employee commits an intentional harm unrelated to their employment.
Intervening Causes: Arguing that the damage was caused by factors beyond the control of the responsible party, such as a third-party act or force majeure.

5. Policy Rationale

The doctrine of indirect liability under quasi-delicts is based on public policy considerations, particularly the principles of social justice and equity:

Preventive Effect: Encouraging supervisors, employers, and parents to exercise greater vigilance.
Compensation for Victims: Ensuring that victims have access to compensation, especially when the tortfeasor is insolvent or lacks capacity.
Accountability: Placing liability on those in positions of authority or control to maintain societal order and justice.

6. Jurisprudence

Philippine courts have consistently upheld the doctrine of indirect liability for intentional acts in the context of quasi-delicts. Notable cases include:

Philippine National Railways v. Brunty (G.R. No. 169891):
- An employer was held liable for intentional acts committed by an employee during the performance of duties.
Amadora v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-47745):
- A school was held accountable for harm caused by its students due to lack of adequate supervision.

7. Conclusion

Indirect liability for intentional acts under Philippine law reinforces the principles of social accountability and restorative justice. By holding certain individuals or entities responsible for the acts of others under their supervision or control, the law ensures that victims of wrongful acts are compensated and encourages due diligence and supervision. Parties potentially subject to such liability must take proactive steps to mitigate risks through proper care, training, and monitoring.